Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
P L D 1984 Lahore 204
Before Fazl‑i‑Mahmood and Muhammad Sharif, JJ
ASLAM PERVAIZ‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 281 of 1982/BWP in Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 1980/BWP, decided on 25th February, 1984.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑---
S. 382‑B‑Scope, import and scheme of S. 382‑B.
Section 382‑B, Cr. P. C. is not a remedial provision like those for an appeal, revision or review. This section of the Criminal Procedure Code only provides that where a Court decides to pass sentence of imprisonment on an accused for an offence, it shall take into consideration the period, if any, during which such accused was detained in custody for such offence. This obligation has been cast primarily upon the Court passing original order of conviction and sentence.
Ali Sher v. The State P L D 1980 S C. 317 ref.
The relief in terms of this section can also be obtained from a Court of appeal or in revision through competently instituted proceedings on showing by the accused/convict that it is due and justified in the facts and circum stances of each case.
The benefit under section 382‑B, Cr. P. C. is not extendable mechanically or as a matter of course. A burden lies on an accused or convict to satisfy the Court that the delay in trial was not the result of his dilatory tactics, but occasioned solely on account of law's delays. This of necessity would require some sort of inquiry by the Court for its judicial satisfaction. 1t is only when the Court is satisfied that the accused/convict is in no manner to blame for the delay, that the Court would order that period of his custody in jail for the offence in respect of which the sentence of imprisonment is being passed be treated as period already undergone, or in view of such period the Court may correspondingly award lesser sentence of imprisonment. Adoption of either course is a mere matter of form without changing the substance. The provision under consideration does not stand on the footing of those mandatory provisions which affect the jurisdiction of the Court itself in the category of incurable illegalities which bring about vitiative infirmities in the decision rendered by the Court. The plea on a question of this nature ought to be raised and benefit claimed by the accused or convict as the case may be, at proper stages during the trial. If wrongly refused, then it can be got redressed in appeal or revision on making out a proper case. The alleged omission to take into consideration the period spent in custody by an accused for an offence in respect of which sentence of imprisonment is passed, either be
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer